Sherwin Brook v. J. McCormley
873 F.3d 549
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brook (Illinois resident, trustee and former president of Cortina) sued Arizona law firm Tiffany & Bosco and attorney McCormley for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from representation related to Arizona real property.
- Cortina (Arizona trust by the time of dispute) engaged Tiffany & Bosco in Arizona beginning in 2001; communications included phone calls and correspondence between Arizona and Illinois, but all in-person work and meetings occurred in Arizona.
- Tiffany & Bosco declined to pursue a nonjudicial foreclosure in 2014 due to conflict concerns; firm’s work and the subject matter were centered in Arizona law and property.
- Brook substituted in as plaintiff after the district court requested a jurisdictional statement; suit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding defendants’ contacts were with Brook personally and were centered in Arizona rather than contacts with Illinois.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois courts have specific personal jurisdiction over defendants | Brook: defendants’ phone calls, correspondence, contract performance linked to Brook/Illinois, and felt injury in Illinois establish long-arm jurisdiction | Defendants: all substantive contacts, meetings, and performance occurred in Arizona; defendants never solicited business in Illinois or targeted Illinois | Court: No. Contacts were with Brook personally and occurred in Arizona; insufficient minimum contacts with Illinois for specific jurisdiction |
| Applicability of Illinois long-arm statute | Brook: statutory provisions for tortious act, contract performance, and breach of fiduciary duty reach defendants | Defendants: statute cannot be satisfied by plaintiff-centered contacts absent defendant contacts with Illinois | Court: Long-arm arguments fail because defendant did not create contacts with Illinois |
| Relevance of out-of-state effects (plaintiff felt injury in Illinois) | Brook: effects in Illinois connect defendants to the forum | Defendants: effects alone insufficient; must show defendant created contacts with forum | Court: Effects on plaintiff in forum are insufficient per Walden; must be defendant’s contacts with forum |
| Whether Walden controls analysis | Brook: distinguishes facts or argues contacts suffice | Defendants: Walden bars jurisdiction where defendant did not direct conduct to forum state | Court: Walden controls; similar tenuous contacts do not permit jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum-contacts due process standard)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (defendant must reasonably anticipate being haled into forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (anticipation of suit and minimum contacts analysis)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (plaintiff’s forum connections alone cannot establish defendant’s contacts with forum)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (Seventh Circuit standard for specific jurisdiction analysis)
- Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (effects on plaintiff are insufficient without defendant’s forum contacts)